Congratulations, Illinois!

Posted on March 9, 2011 by Michael

Illinois has entered the mid-20th century:

Illinois abolished the death penalty Wednesday, more than a decade after the state imposed a moratorium on executions out of concern that innocent people could be put to death by a justice system that had wrongly condemned 13 men.

Gov. Pat Quinn also commuted the sentences of all 15 inmates remaining on death row. They will now serve life in prison with no hope of parole.

It’s always satisfying when one finds out that planned murder has been thwarted.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , | 6 Comments »

What I’m giving up for Lent:

Posted on March 9, 2011 by Michael

I will give up not having enough sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll in my life. I need to increase all of these things to Charlie Sheen levels. Now, now, worry not. I realize that my face may melt off, but I believe I also have Adonis DNA, so I’m willing to risk it. And really, this is Lent. Let me have my baseless faith like everyone else who is arbitrarily giving something up, okay? I mean, at least what I want to give up can only improve my life.

Now excuse me while I go look at some mildly exposed skin, take some aspirin, and listen to a little Creed. (What did you expect? It is a Christian event.)

Filed under: Humor | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Feminism, men, and video games

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Michael

In my run-in with a few caricature feminists last year, I disagreed over something pretty simple. There was a picture of two fat women next to an article about fat women and medical care on CNN. The caricature feminist, Suzanne Franks, said that it was a sexist picture because it didn’t show their faces, instead only focusing on their “boobs and vagina”. Several people, including myself, pointed out that it would be wildly inappropriate to feature their faces, and besides, the article was about fat people. The objectification was on fatness, not women per se. For that I was deemed horrifically sexist; I clearly must hate all women. In fact, I was accused of only disagreeing because the blogger was a woman. In reality, I actually had assumed she was a man. A small part of the reason is that most bloggers are men, but there was also this reason:

As I (audaciously!) explained in previous posts, I never said my assumption (that the post was by a man) was good or bad. What’s more, I was also going on the fact that Franks looks like a man with long hair in her picture. I didn’t originally raise that point for the sake of not being so crude, but if she’s going to hammer on the point, then that’s what’s going to happen.

So in my effort not to be insulting of her face, I had to say I had an assumption I knew wouldn’t going over well where I was. But I figured I had at least won the point: If I assumed the blogger was a male, then I couldn’t possibly be disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing with a woman. Of course, actually addressing that point would be embarrassing; people don’t like to admit when they’re wrong on the Internet. Instead, everyone focused on the fact that I had such a crazy! assumption in the first place. I freely admitted that it wasn’t a great assumption to have, even if most bloggers actually are male, but that didn’t really matter to anyone. Assumptions?! YOU HATE [whatever that person likes]!!!

So that brings me to a recent post by PZ. He talks about some new book that says 21st century men are immature and not living up to any real standards. The reason? Feminism, of course! It’s clearly a stupid premise.* However, just as stupid is the claim PZ makes that men aren’t growing up for the intrinsic reason that they are men. If there’s a problem with this generation, it isn’t just with one sex or the other. (Not that I think there’s something horrid about this generation: PZ is an old guy, so he’s falling into the trap into which most every old person before him has fallen – he thinks young people suck and we didn’t have to walk 15 miles in the snow to get to school just so we could get our daily whipping!)

But his unusually muddled post aside, several of the commenters take the time to mention video games when talking about immature men. Jadehawk had this to say:

meh. I don’t mind the non-marrying, non-settling down sort of man. I don’t even mind the video-game playing, spending all night on the internet type. In fact, I’ve got one of those at home.

It’s the entitled douchebags I mind. Those who think all women are supposed to play mommy for them.

While I’m glad Jadehawk (look at me, not assuming his or her sex!) took the time to differentiate between these type of men, I still really hate the association between video games and the immaturity PZ discussed. It’s just an ugly assumption. And aren’t assumptions like that just shitty? They were when I made them about Franks being male.

But on video games: first of all, video gamers are nearly split 50/50 between male and female today. Second, if someone goes on and on about the acting or the storyline or the plot twists or the cinematography of a movie, why, that’s just an avid movie goer; that person really appreciates a form of art. But video games? Nah. That’s just childish baby-baby stuff. It’s totally different because, um, well, uh, um, um, um, it just is, okay?!

You know, I don’t think my points here are too crazy. 1) The connection between feminism causing immaturity in men is just as nebulous as the connection between men and some magical intrinsic immaturity. 2) The assumptions we make, while almost always more common and with more impact from the dominant side, are often a fault. 3) Video gamers are composed of an ever-increasing even mixture of men and women, neither of which is immature for wanting to have some virtual fun.

But I’m sure that’s horribly fucking sexist in someone’s eyes.

*According to the comment section on the post, it looks like that isn’t really the premise of the book. The website reporting it, WorldNutDaily, seems to have given things their own spin.

Filed under: Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Michael

The best way, in my experience, to stump or trap or trip up a Christian is to just ask questions. Every time I’ve pounded on a point and demanded answer after answer from Christians they always change the subject, refuse to answer for some BS reason, or otherwise attempt to divert attention from their beliefs. It makes people uncomfortable to be put on the defensive, and it especially puts people not used to being challenged in a very difficult situation. That makes for the perfect set-up. Give it a try.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Limbaugh and Hannity involved in fraud?

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Michael

The above question mark is ironic: like FOX Noise, I’m really outright claiming what I wrote. However, unlike FOX Noise, what I’m claiming has evidence:

But according to an online account, Premiere [the radio company that employs Limbaugh and Hannity] is hiring actors to fake on-air calls to radio shows who do not divulge the scam. Before being abruptly removed, their website read:

“Premiere On Call is our new custom caller service… We supply voice talent to take/make your on-air calls, improvise your scenes or deliver your scripts. Using our simple online booking tool, specify the kind of voice you need, and we’ll get your the right person fast. Unless you request it, you won’t hear that same voice again for at least two months, ensuring the authenticity of your programming for avid listeners”.

As reported, once the actor “passed the audition, he would be invited periodically to call in to various talk shows and recite various scenarios that made for interesting radio.” In addition, the source was specifically told there would be no on-air disclosure of the fabricated nature of the call. He subsequently landed the job, at $40 per hour and a minimum one hour of work per day.

This suggests an array of radio clients is broadcasting bogus calls by actors, categorized by their accents or vocal qualities. Next time you hear a “gruff”, “clean”, “crisp”, “deep”, or “textured” voice, you might just be hearing a Premiere On Call actor secretively playing a real person.

This report stems from an accidental posting that appeared on Premiere’s website. I can’t say I’m surprised at the revelation. Both hosts have a history of being very selective about what information they present; the fact that they would hire actors to demonstrate specific points makes sense. They just aren’t honest guys and this is perfectly within their characters.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , | 10 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on March 7, 2011 by Michael

One of the most fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans is cohesion. The Democrats don’t always stick together, thus weakening their clout. I think this generally reflects the more nuanced stances they take; that’s what happens when people invest a little thought into reality. The Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be more mindless. They don’t deviate from The Plan. This greatly reflects how ideological they are. Really, just take a look at the reactions the party had after it was killed in ’06 and ’08: it wanted to get rid of all the RINOs and people willing to compromise. It looks like that worked, at least in the short term, so kudos to them for having a successful, even if abhorrent, political strategy.

So I don’t think we’re going to see another John McCain sort of candidate in 2012, one that emphasizes being a maverick. Granted, McCain was (and is) pretty slimey in his overt moves to the far right, contradicting much of his career, but he just couldn’t appeal to the pale white, suburban base of the Republican party enough. A Huckabee has a better chance because of his pretty generic anti-all-things-good Republican positions. Though I’m not making any sort of specific prediction right now, it is clear that anyone with nuance is unlikely to be successful in the GOP any time soon. (Think about it: How many Democrats cross the aisle all the time, voting for generally conservative positions? How many Republicans do the inverse? I can name two, and they’re both from my state.)

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

What do I need to climb Kilimanjaro?

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Michael

I admit it. My title is designed to help me show up in search engines.

But it is a good question.

Climbing Kilimanjaro is easier than most people think. It is not technical. It doesn’t involve any mountaineering skills, and in fact, novice hikers can likely handle it. All it takes is moderate fitness, the right preparation, and – excuse the cliche – a will to do it.

Which company?

I’m going to skip over the gear because plenty of sites offer lists of stuff (though I will mention one thing – bring hiking poles). I want to address what I think is the real first step in summiting Kilimanjaro: the tour company. There are a lot out there and it can be quite time-consuming finding the right one. So let me save you some time:

Book with Zara Tours.

One of my chief concerns was finding an American-based company. I wanted to make sure that I was sending my money off to a reputable source. Of course, being American doesn’t make a company trustworthy, but I figured it was better than a foreign company based in a country I had never visited. As it turns out, though, I had sent my money off to a middle man. He was nice enough, if somewhat difficult to contact over the phone, but I didn’t really need him. He just set up my trip through Zara Tours, a company based in Tanzania, naturally charging me more than if I cut him out of the picture.

Which route?

Again, I’m not going to list out detailed descriptions of things that can be found in a million other places, but I will recommend the route I took: Lemosho. I’m sure the others are fine, but it depends on the person. Personally, I didn’t want to sleep in a hut. The reason? A lot of other people do want to sleep in them. That makes for a messier, more crowded campground. Not that any route isn’t going to be crowded during high season, but I prefer a relatively quieter area. Lemosho provided that, especially since it is tent-only.

Here are some campgrounds. This first one is one where I actually stayed:

If I recall, more groups eventually did show up, but it was still pretty quiet. Higher up, however, it gets more crowded because several of the routes converge:

I actually stayed at a site about 30 minutes from here (Shira 2, maybe?), but this is pretty representative. Continue further and it gets more and more crowded. It never got overwhelming, but do expect to see some people up there.

When?

Plenty of sites list out climate information, so I’m not going to knock out a list myself. But for my experience, my trip was from the tail end of August into September, which was dry. In fact, I experienced 15 minutes of drizzle the whole time, and that was only because I was in a cloud. (It also snowed a couple of inches at the final camp before summit, but I’m told it was rather unusual for that time; besides, it happened at night.)

I would recommend to obviously go during the dry season. The mountain is still accessible in the wet season, but scheduling will be more restricted and a successful climb may not be in the cards. Also, many people like to go during a full moon. I personally wanted a new moon so I could see the stars more intensely (plus there would be fewer people). As it turned out, I had a long night filled with amazing stars, later giving way to a yellow quarter moon, capped with the most incredible sunrise I have ever seen. On this one it’s to each his own, but I don’t think disappointment is possible with any choice.

Money?

The Zara link above will list out how much it costs for the climb, which may change at any given time. I personally paid about $1850 with the middle man. That isn’t the rock bottom price, but it is somewhat on the lower end, and the guides and porters were fantastic. What I wish I had have done, given my half-day or so ride from the frickin’ Serengeti, was spring the extra few bucks (okay, a lot bucks) for a safari. Don’t be overly concerned with money. I plan on revisiting Africa at some point, so a safari will happen for me, but my Tanzania trip could just as easily be a once-in-a-lifetime experience. It would have been worth it to go all-out.

Also be sure to budget cash for the loose ends. I was short on cash because, duh, Tanzania doesn’t much like debit or credit cards. The visa, which can easily be had immediately after landing, was $100 (cash only). I also had to buy some meals and (of course) beer at the hotel (cash only). They weren’t expensive by any means, but it is a cost. For the tips for the guides and porters (cash only) I had to use an ATM in Moshi. It was a disconcerting experience to put my card in a machine so far from home, to say the least. I believe I only gave them around $200, but the average is probably more like $250. (And given the incredible people I had, I wish I had have withdrawn more.) Don’t worry about how to dole everything out; I know a lot of sites make a big deal out of it, but all the money just goes to the head guide. Clean and simple.

Why?

Because it is there.

I’ve barely scratched the surface for the sort of questions people have, so feel free to ask in the comment section: you will get an answer.

Filed under: Hiking | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Thought of the day

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Michael

If God creates morality, then morality is ultimately arbitrary; an act is not intrinsically good, but only good on the say so of God. What this means is that murder is not always wrong and that rape might be okay some day. However, if morality transcends God, then God is not the only thing which is eternal. This conflicts with most Christian beliefs, and certainly with many Christian ‘proofs’ for God.

But then, I’m never really surprised when I note yet another unresolvable problem for Christians.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Kid Rock and the Confederate flag

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Michael

Some NAACP supporters (not the organization itself) is boycotting a fundraiser honoring Kid Rock. The reason is his continued use of the Confederate flag:

But Adolph Mongo, a longtime political consultant and head of Detroiters for Progress, said he and others will sit out over Kid Rock’s use of the controversial Confederate flag during performances.

“It’s a slap in the face for anyone who fought for civil rights in this country,” Mongo said Thursday. “It’s a symbol of hatred and bigotry.”

Of course, Kid Rock stands by his use of the flag, calling it a symbol of southern rock.

I don’t see what’s so hard to get about this. Whether the flag means one thing or another to a specific person, it has the larger representation of the slave-holding South. It means, at its very core, the preservation of slavery. Honestly. I recall convincing a Confederate flag-supporting friend that it had very little to do with anything remotely positive or representative of modern Western values. All it took was a website explaining its basic history in a matter of a few lines. And that was when we were maybe 14 years old. What excuse do adults have?

But all this aside, I feel that a far more valid reason for boycotting anything honoring Kid Rock is that he makes shitty music.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Professor apologizes to fragile children

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Michael

The professor who allowed a live sex act as part of an after-class event originally had this to say:

I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students, who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grown ups rather than fragile children.

That was great. Treat adults like adults. Wonderful.

But this is America:

“I regret allowing the controversial after class demonstration on February 21st,” Professor J. Michael Bailey, who teaches a popular class on human sexuality, wrote in a statement.

“I regret the effect that this has had on Northwestern University’s reputation, and I regret upsetting so many people in this particular manner. I apologize,” he wrote.

Filed under: News | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »